View Full Version : Question about unknown weapon system

07-21-2007, 05:34 AM
A few month ago i did found some stuff from the second world war at my Attic
including some 8 mm film reels
some of them show tests with ground to air missile systems like the waterfall (wasserfall) and the butterfly (schmetterling) but there is one missle system i`ve never seen before

here is the whole reel (http://freenet-homepage.de/onlive/karlshagen.swf)

enyone have any idea what this might be ??

Gen. Sandworm
07-21-2007, 11:22 AM
enyone have any idea what this might be ??

Not a clue........although someone else might. Looks like you found something alot of ppl dont know much about. Good video BTW. Seems this could be pretty useful if deployed in quantity. Im sure the reload time for this is pretty crappy. Also im not sure how they are detonating the bomb. Could be quite a few different ways.

07-21-2007, 01:48 PM
Not sure if this thing did ever see action .. you know by the end of the war the germans came up with alot of funny things
but from the personal belongings i can say that this guy did fight in russia he was wounded there and then was tranfaired to holland as flight instructor after some month he got a job in karlshagen, the restricted area of the army and air force laboratory peenemuende, where he took part in some research for ground to air, air to air and air to ground missile systems
as you can see he has the luftwaffe pilot/observer badge and the luftwaffe bomber clasp, gold grade, awarded to pilots and crew who successfully completed 120 operational flights. aswell as the iron cross, first class and the russian front medal

07-21-2007, 02:53 PM
I don't know if it IS a SAM weapon.

Wait Out, it may be a proto type for submarine launched rockets.

I'll have to find them on the t'internet.

07-21-2007, 02:55 PM

have a look here, similer at least.

07-22-2007, 03:29 AM
This one is confusing.

It is undoubtedly an anti aircraft weapon. But why? Could it be an amalgamation of test? (doubtful) or the rockets aren't as advanced as they should be.

It is moveable, and the frame intricate. The removalable wheels, as they are shown, is no mean feet. These alone would require a fair amount of engineer work, and this could have been achieved without this work.

It is clearly designed for speedy erection by soldiers. The launcher is one piece when attached to the "turret" and there appears to be no small carefull work to fit it.

The range finder doesn't appear to move, and wouldn't be able to traverse up much. from it's existing apetures.

At first, watching the video I wondered if was for bombardment of a naval/beach landing.

The rockets that explode, if that is what they were supposed to do in battle. The Germans already had shells that did this. And more shells could be fired from the existing guns in the same time as only 2 from this device.

The one thing that keeps coming up in my mind is that this is NOT a dedicated Anti-Aircraft weapon.

I am wondering if it is a replacement for large guns? It is far more moveable than a larger artillery piece, and could even be carried (i feel) short distances. You could put one of these on top of a bunker/building. The damage/effects of launch were important to someone, as they ahavebeen filmed.

The daylight shots don't seem to explode, the night shots do.

07-22-2007, 03:38 AM

video of the Kummersdorf site. This was where the initial work was carried out prior to the move to Peenemunde.

Nebelwerfer barrage


07-22-2007, 03:44 AM
A possible clue from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/rocket/index.html

extract from the "intelligence bulletin".

The capabilities of German rocket and recoilless weapons warrant serious study by U.S. soldiers, not only because they are highly effective and mobile but because they are being used increasingly, in view of Germany's raw material shortages, as substitutes for conventional artillery and antitank weapons. When the Germans began this war, they believed that their Stuka bombers—the Ju 87 and the Ju 88—would take over a high percentage of direct infantry-support missions from the field artillery. No matter how well these aircraft may have accomplished their missions during the campaign in Poland, Norway, the Low Countries, and France, their inability to take over a field artillery role became evident after Germany had attacked Russia and had encountered masses of Russian artillery. However, by the time the attrition of the war with Russia had its cramping effect on German industry, it was too late for Hitler to build up his artillery arm sufficiently to gain the necessary superiority.

Before the war the Germans, like the Russians, had been experimenting with rocket developments. When the need for artillery substitutes became apparent, the Germans naturally turned to rockets and rocket launchers since these were relatively inexpensive and could be produced quickly. In contrast to artillery, rockets do not require electric-furnace steel, carefully forged tubes, or heavy carriages with delicately machined recoil and counterrecoil mechanisms.

07-22-2007, 06:10 AM
I still think this is an anti aircraft weapon .. it looks like that the goal was to bring up as much explosive power as possible to the incoming bomber formation
an explosion of this size inside an close bomber formation would have had an huge destructive effect

07-22-2007, 08:06 AM
Bombers flew at very high level, esp the American ones.

But again, there were better ways of interdicting them, and these missiles wouldn't be able to reach these altitudes, they aren't big enough and are the wrong shape for such jobs. They are also not stabilied for this, they are too small for efficicent gyros of the time AND a warhead. They could be spun, but this is only effective over short distances, after that they spin off centre.

Also the weapon platform isn't equipped with the correct optics or predictor equipment in order to take in to account the movement of the bomber force.

The ranging equipment shown doesn't seem to traverse much at all.

When fully elevated, it appears that the platform supports would intervere with the traversing of the turret.

The weapons fired seem to resemble the rockets used for ground bombardment more than anything else.

I am still looking but, for now, it appears that this is a weapons platform designed to be a substitute for heavy artillery. The airbursts don't seem to be in evidence during the day, maybe this is becaues they don't show up in the day but more likely it is because the AA weapons were specifically fired at night so they could be seen better.

Gen. Sandworm
07-22-2007, 12:21 PM
I still think its a SAM. Ive been looking and cant find much. My guess is it might be footage of the Hecht(Pike) Prototype.

Here is a good list I found.


07-22-2007, 02:27 PM
List of German Rockets...


Gen. Sandworm
07-22-2007, 04:52 PM
I still think its a SAM. Ive been looking and cant find much. My guess is it might be footage of the Hecht(Pike) Prototype.

Here is a good list I found.


List of German Rockets...


Beat ya to the link! ;):D

07-22-2007, 06:52 PM
Is a 320 mm rocket I think, perhaps was set with time fuse to exploded in the air and disrupt bomber forrmations.

07-23-2007, 06:14 AM
Looks very alike a modified 38cm Raketen - Sprenggranate 4581. These rocket was an early navy developement fired from an coastal launcher against subs.
Later a modified version was used in the Sturmtiger. These rockets get an pre formed driving band and the launcher was rifled too.

These rockets looked modified and shortened using no driving band but may be angled nozzles to rotate the rocket.
The problem was the fuze. There are some different proximity fuzes in developement.

Very nice film. Never see that befor.

Gen. Sandworm
07-23-2007, 10:01 AM
It says that this was filmed during 44 at Karlshagen. Does this fit your time frame genkideskan????

07-23-2007, 03:32 PM
Can't see why they would be fired against subs though. Surface to Surface would explain the lack of movement (upwards) of the range finder though.

The British Hedgehog had lots more rockets, this only had two.

07-23-2007, 06:17 PM
Sorry, the first system developed by the navy was against subs - this installation using an 2cm Flak 38 mount and a rangefinder is surely AA.
The developement and testing was arround Januar 1945 and the name was
MAIKÄFER ( cockchafer ).

07-23-2007, 06:48 PM
Sorry but I wouldn't like to fire anything that would chafe my cock.

07-24-2007, 09:01 PM
The British Hedgehog had lots more rockets, .
The Hedgehog didn't have any rockets. Its missiles were spigot mortars, there were thrown by an explosive device in its tail exactly like in a PIAT.

07-25-2007, 11:55 AM
The Hedgehog didn't have any rockets. Its missiles were spigot mortars, there were thrown by an explosive device in its tail exactly like in a PIAT. I get what you are saying, but the PIAT was launched by a spring.

07-25-2007, 12:33 PM
It had explosives in it also, it was hoped the explosive discharge of the round would recock the PIAT, sometimes it did sometimes it didn't.

Common misconception, the PIAT was more like a mortar, with a moving striker. It is believed (i think) that it has no charge, because it could be used inside buildings unlike bazookas etc.

The spring pushed against a 12 lb (5 kg) steel canister and rod that rode up the barrel and struck the rear of the bomb, igniting a small propulsion charge. The heavy bolt and rod, known as the spigot, was used primarily to damp out the recoil of the round leaving the barrel. The charge was also intended to reset the spring, meaning that the weapon had to be cocked only once, by pulling up on the tube while standing on a handle mounted at the rear.

The wiki.